Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 381 views

    Atty Mangontawar Vs NPC

    Uploaded by

    1234567890
    This case involves a lawyer, Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat, asserting his right to contingent fees from his clients who had settled out of court with National Power Corporation behind his back. The trial court initially granted the lawyer's claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed it. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy in this case since an appeal was available; 2) the lawyer was not entitled to summary judgment as the existence of bad faith was a genuine issue of fact; and 3) while a client can settle a case without a lawyer's involvement, the settlement terms cannot deprive the lawyer of compensation for professional services rendered, as the lawyer's fees are

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Atty Mangontawar Vs NPC

    Uploaded by

    1234567890
    381 views2 pages
    This case involves a lawyer, Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat, asserting his right to contingent fees from his clients who had settled out of court with National Power Corporation behind his back. The trial court initially granted the lawyer's claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed it. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy in this case since an appeal was available; 2) the lawyer was not entitled to summary judgment as the existence of bad faith was a genuine issue of fact; and 3) while a client can settle a case without a lawyer's involvement, the settlement terms cannot deprive the lawyer of compensation for professional services rendered, as the lawyer's fees are

    Original Title

    Atty Mangontawar vs NPC.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a lawyer, Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat, asserting his right to contingent fees from his clients who had settled out of court with National Power Corporation behind his back. The trial court initially granted the lawyer's claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed it. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy in this case since an appeal was available; 2) the lawyer was not entitled to summary judgment as the existence of bad faith was a genuine issue of fact; and 3) while a client can settle a case without a lawyer's involvement, the settlement terms cannot deprive the lawyer of compensation for professional services rendered, as the lawyer's fees are

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    381 views2 pages

    Atty Mangontawar Vs NPC

    Uploaded by

    1234567890
    This case involves a lawyer, Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat, asserting his right to contingent fees from his clients who had settled out of court with National Power Corporation behind his back. The trial court initially granted the lawyer's claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed it. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy in this case since an appeal was available; 2) the lawyer was not entitled to summary judgment as the existence of bad faith was a genuine issue of fact; and 3) while a client can settle a case without a lawyer's involvement, the settlement terms cannot deprive the lawyer of compensation for professional services rendered, as the lawyer's fees are

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat vs. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 167415, Feb.

    26, 2010
    Del Castillo, J.
    Facts: A lawyer asserts his right to his contingent fees after his clients, allegedly behind his back,
    had entered into an out-of-court settlement with the National Power Corporation (NPC). The
    trial court granted his claim by way of summary judgment. However, this was reversed by the
    Court of Appeals (CA) because the counsel was allegedly enforcing a decision that was already
    vacated. In this petition, petitioner Atty. Mangontawar M. Gubat (Atty. Gubat) attempts to
    persuade us that the compensation due him is independent of the vacated decision, his
    entitlement thereto being based on another reason: the bad faith of his clients and of the
    respondent NPC.
    Issue: WON resort to rule 65 is proper.
    Ruling: No. Petition for certiorari is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy,
    and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the remedy of appeal by way
    of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is not only available but also the proper mode
    of appeal. For all intents and purposes, we find that petitioner filed the instant petition
    for certiorari under Rule 65 as a substitute for a lost appeal.
    Issue: WON petitioner’s resort to summary judgment is proper.
    Ruling: No. He is not entitled to an immediate relief as a matter of law, for the existence of
    bad faith is a genuine issue of fact to be tried. A summary judgment is allowed only if, after
    hearing, the court finds no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled
    to a judgment as a matter of law.
    Issue: WON a lawyer may be deprived of his compensation for professional services rendered
    if his client enters into a compromise agreement without the lawyer’s intervention?
    Ruling: No. A client may enter into a compromise agreement without the intervention of the
    lawyer, but the terms of the agreement should not deprive the counsel of his compensation
    for the professional services he had rendered. If so, the compromise shall be subjected to said
    fees. If the client and the adverse party who assented to the compromise are found to have
    intentionally deprived the lawyer of his fees, the terms of the compromise, insofar as they
    prejudice the lawyer, will be set aside, making both parties accountable to pay the lawyer’s
    fees. But in all cases, it is the client who is bound to pay his lawyer for his legal representation.
    A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions,
    avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced. It is a consensual contract, binding
    upon the signatories/privies, and it has the effect of res judicata. This cannot however affect
    third persons who are not parties to the agreement.
    The validity of a compromise agreement cannot be prejudiced, so should not be the
    payment of a lawyer’s adequate and reasonable compensation for his services should the suit
    end by reason of the settlement. The terms of the compromise subscribed to by the client
    should not be such that will amount to an entire deprivation of his lawyer’s fees, especially
    when the contract is on a contingent fee basis. In this sense, the compromise settlement cannot
    bind the lawyer as a third party. A lawyer is as much entitled to judicial protection against
    injustice or imposition of fraud on the part of his client as the client is against abuse on the
    part of his counsel.
    Even if the compensation of a counsel is dependent only upon winning a case he
    himself secured for his client, the subsequent withdrawal of the case on the clients own volition
    should never completely deprive counsel of any legitimate compensation for his professional
    services.

    You might also like